Imaging for early stage breast cancer

In-Breast Recurrence

Results of 2 nd. Breast conserving surgery (BCS) without RT versus modified radical mastectomy (MRM)

Crude 2 nd. LR% BCS vs . MRM

5-y 2 nd. LR% BCS vs. MRM

Institute

FUP years

No. of pts. BCS vs . MRM

5-y OS% BCS vs. MRM

EIO, Milan

3.7

161 vs. 0

21 vs. -

31 vs. -

82 vs. -

EIO, Milan

6.1

57 vs. 133

14 vs. 3

19 vs. 4

85 vs. 70

As consequence:

NIO, Budapest

14

32 vs. 32

28 vs. 16

NR

77 vs. 55

Karolinska Hosp. 1. Type of salvage surgery is not an independent predictor of post-recurrence survival. 6 14 vs. 65 50 vs. 18 33 vs. 12 NR

Dutch Study Group

4.3

20 vs. 229

40 vs. 22

NR

NR

14 2. However, pts. subjected to salvage MRM have better local control compared to pts. subjected to repeat BCS without RT. 30 vs. 116 7 vs. 7 NR 66 vs. 58

Yale-New Haven Hosp

Osaka Med. Center

3.6

30 vs. 11

30 vs. 0

37 vs. 0

90 vs. 91

JCRT, Boston

3.3

16 vs. 123

31 vs. 6

NR

NR vs. 79

Marseille Cancer Inst.

3

34 vs. 36

9 vs. 3

22 vs. 4

NR

Marseille Cancer Inst. 3. Re-irradiation after second BCS may decrease the chance of 2 nd. LR. 6 52 vs. 0 23 vs. - 21 vs. -

79 vs. -

Marseille Cancer Inst.

4.3

50 vs. 0

32 vs. -

38 vs. -

67 vs. -

Univ. Pennsylvania

3.7

0 vs. 112

- vs. 3

NR

- vs. 86

University Hospital Erlangen

All patients

3-14

496 vs. 857

23% vs. 11%

19-38% vs. 0-12%

66-90% vs. 55-91%